Report No. 27935R2
August 7, 2001
Revised: November 13, 2002
Client: Rust Bullet, LLC
300 Brinkby Ave., Suite 200
Reno, Nevada 89509
Reference: Mr. Robert Murphy
Subject: Comparison of Specialty Coatings for Rust Control Products.
Sample Description:
Nine coated metal test panels were submitted by the Client and identified
by individual numbers 1 through 9. A tenth, uncoated, panel was submitted
as a control.
Also submitted by the Client was one document entitled “Test
Protocol”. This document required each of the nine coated test
panels to be scribed through to the metal substrate and subjected sequentially
to a series of environmental exposures. If the coating on any of the
test panels exhibited visible degradation, testing of that particular
panel was to be terminated.
Request:
Expose the submitted test panels to the environmental sequence listed
in the submitted “Test Protocol”.
Photograph the test panels after each environmental exposure
microscopically and in normal close-up view.
Test No. 1:
Method: All nine of the coated test panels were scribed down to the
metal substrate and exposed to 168 hours of accelerated weathering
in an Atlas Weatherometer model 18W type HH. The apparatus and operation
was in accordance with the procedures set forth in ASTM* G-153. The
uncoated control panel was similarly exposed.
Results: None of the nine coated test panels exhibited any
degradation of the integrity of the coating. The uncoated control panel
exhibited light surface rusting.
Test No. 2:
Method: After accelerated weathering all ten of the submitted test
panels were thermal cycled (ASTM D-2337) between 160°F and –20°F.
Two cycles were performed each consisting of 3 hours.
Results: None of the coated test panels exhibited any visible
evidence of coating degradation. The uncoated control panel
exhibited additional surface rusting.
Test No. 3:
Method: After thermal cycling all ten test panels were placed in
a salt fog/spray chamber for 500 hours (3 weeks). The chamber was operated
in accordance with the procedures set forth in ASTM B-117 except actual
sea water was used in place of standard salt water.
Results: Panel numbers 2, 5, 6, and 8 exhibited corrosion
along the scribe line with undercutting of less than 3/16
of an inch. Panel numbers 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9 exhibited coating failure
over the entire surface of each panel. These panels were considered
complete failures and were eliminated from further testing. The uncoated
control panel was so severely corroded as to be of no further value
and was also eliminated.
Test No. 4:
Method: After 500 hours of salt fog/spray the remaining four test
panels were submerged in sea water (ASTM D-870) for 336 hours (2 weeks).
Results: Panel numbers 6 and 8 undercut by more than ¼ of an
inch were considered failures. Panel numbers 2 and 5 still exhibited
good film integrity and were considered as passing this phase of testing.
Test No. 5:
Method: Original specimens of panels 2, 5, 6, and 8 were evaluated
for abrasion resistance in accordance with the procedures set forth
in ASTM D-4060 Taber using 1000 gram load and CS-10 abrasive wheels.
Results:
| Specimen |
Cycles to Wear-Through |
| 2 |
14,000 |
| 5 |
30 |
| 6 |
4,000 |
| 8 |
10,000 |
Note: Panel #5 was considered a failure and was eliminated from further
testing.
Test No. 6:
Method: Original specimens of panels 2, 6, and 8 were evaluated for
flexibility of the coating in accordance with the procedures set forth
in ASTM D-522 method B using a 3/8” mandrel.
Results: At a 12% elongation of the respective coatings,
panels 6 and 8 exhibited cracking of the film. At a 12% elongation
of the coating panel 2 did not exhibited any cracking or
disbonding of the film.
Test No. 7:
Method: Original specimens of panels 2, 6, and 8 were evaluated for
chip resistance by the rapid deformation procedure (ASTM D-2794).
Results: Panels 6 and 8 exhibited cracking of the respective
paint film at the 24 inch pound level of impact. Panel 2
exhibited cracking of the paint film at the 28 inch pound level of
impact.
Test No. 8:
Method: Original specimens of panels 2, 6, and 8 were evaluated for
adhesion in accordance with the procedure set forth in ASTM D-3359.
Results: Panels 2 and 6 exhibited 100% adhesion. Panel no.
8 exhibited 96% adhesion.
* American Society for Testing & Materials
ASTM International
100 Barr Harbor Dr.
P.O. Box C700
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959
www.astm.org
